3 ms·
I did point this out at the top of my original comment. “I mean, it's cool that computers are getting even better at chess and all“ > direct comparison only m
by mindgam3 7y ago
I did point this out at the top of my original comment.
“I mean, it's cool that computers are getting even better at chess and all“
> direct comparison only makes sense with equivalent performance level
This makes no sense to me. 50% increase in performance can be compared to 50% increase in processing power to evaluate level of brute force-ness.
- SonOfLilit 7y agoYes, but how is "50% better" measured? On what scale?
- mindgam3 7y agoEasy. Chess uses the Elo rating system. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
- SonOfLilit 7y agoI mean that ELO is not linear and there is no obvious ratio operation for ELO scores. How much is better than 2,600? Is it 5,200? Is it the rating at which you'd have 2:1 odds of winning a match? (Wikipedia says 200 points represent 74% chance of winning, so somewhere below 2,800) There's just no commonly agreed meaning of "50% better Chess player".
- summerlight 7y ago> This makes no sense to me. 50% increase in performance can be compared to 50% increase in processing power to evaluate level of brute force-ness. Computational complexity theory taught us that fundamental difficulty of solving specific types of problems does not always linearly scale with the size of the problems. I guess the same logic applies to the quality of the output?